Re: [DL] The Wind Cannon

[Patrick Downs <knick_nevin@yahoo.com>]

--- Derek Bass <wangenstein@mad.scientist.com> wrote:
> I disagree with the assertion that a Catastrophic
> failure has to cause a lot of damage to the user.
> I'm a big believer in giving a Catastrophic failure
> a narrative effect, rather than just a damage
> amount. The narrative effect can be worse for the
> Scientist in the long run. Let me give an example:
> 
> In Smith & Robards (IIRC), there is a "climbing
> spider" backpack for climbing walls, cliffs, etc. On
> a Catastrophic failure, the legs of the spider turn
> inwards, doing 8d8 damage to the user automatically.
> That seems extremely harsh to me. A simpler
> Catastrophe would be to have all six legs release
> their grip on the wall at once (and require a
> Tinkerin' roll to repair). That way, the user just
> takes falling damage. If they're 200-feet up,
> they're in a lot of trouble, but if they're 10-feet
> off the ground, it isn't likely to be automatically
> fatal. 
> 
> Catastrophes can be plenty catastrophic without
> being instantly deadly.

I agree with you, generally I think any kind of
malfunction (or backlash for that matter) should take
on an effect that a manitou is trying to produce. On
malfunction charts, damage should be listed for rules
purposes.
I tend to be a mean GM when it comes to malfunctions
(or backlashes) so in your example, if the scientist
were 200 feet up, certainly the legs would retract
causing the scietist to plummet to an uncertain but
sticky fate. If he were 10 feet off the ground, the
legs would retract inward causing 8d8 damage.
Manitous aren't nice, so why should I be?
>:D

-doc

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger
http://phonecard.yahoo.com/